I nearly got caught as well; I am travelling to Uzbekistan in June and had read in an English newspaper about the relaxation of visa restrictions that were announced in December. I had not read that in January they were reintroduced, and so I need now to get a permit from their embassy in Washington.

Things change, and it is always the traveller who is ultimately responsible for their own paperwork!

You are warned.

I would love to hear from you - do you like the radio links? I do a weekly broadcast on CBC Radio, and am happy to put the links up on the blog ... let me know!

Thursday, April 20, 2017

A friend checking in to Lisbon airport this morning for a
United flight to Newark was advised that his reservation had been cancelled
three days previously. Curiously, he had been invited that morning by United to
check-in on-line for the same flight.

So one of two things has apparently happened.

The first is that Air Portugal, United’s handling agents
in Lisbon, had “adjusted” the reservation for some operational reason, and the
second is that United’s computer had, indeed, cancelled his booking 72 hours
prior to the flight.

The first is sadly possible; airline agents at airports
are well known for manipulating reservations and blaming travel agents and
other intermediaries; passing the buck is an age-old tradition in the industry,
and cannot be ignored.

The second is more sinister. There used to be a
requirement for all international flights to be reconfirmed 72 hours prior to
the return journey. This was slowly eliminated, and most travellers today would
have no memory of this requirement. However, simply because the requirement has
been ignored does not mean that it is no longer detailed in United Airline’s 500-page
thigh-slapper of Terms and Conditions.

So, in order to avoid “overbooking”, are they simply
reverting to an obscure clause requiring reconfirmation, and then “unbooking”
sufficient passengers to ensure no overbooked passengers?

There is, of course, nobody at United to talk to and we
will leave this to professional investigators. In these days it is easy to jump
to conclusions, but if it looks, smells and walks like a duck, you know what it
probably is.

Tuesday, April 11, 2017

The United Airlines
incident is a most instructive situation, and one that has drawn a number of
issues to the public's attention. I worked in the airline business for many
years, and am quite aware that any transaction between an individual and an
airline is the single most one-sided agreement that is ever voluntarily
entered.

First, we should ask
ourselves why that is. Airlines are commercial behemoths that grew from
state-owned or state-controlled entities into private businesses; they brought
with them a common view of their own unquestionable authority and have been
allowed to develop this deportment unchecked.

Consumer protection in
North America is weak to non-existent. Partially as a result in the separation
of responsibilities between federal governments and state/provincial bodies in
an industry that was not foreseen by our respective founding fathers. Simply,
there is no consumer protection in this industry at all.

Overbooking is a scourge
for carriers that do operate on extremely thin margins. It is, however, a
problem that has diminished considerably since the 1990s, and the introduction
of e-tickets, which at their core are the marrying of a reservation with money,
have reduced the majority of travellers’ attempts to hold several simultaneous bookings.

All airlines have
specific flights that were subject to wild overbooking; Northwest Airline’s
Friday evening Minneapolis/Winnipeg flight offered 120 seats; regularly they
would book over 200 passengers and still leave with one or two empty ones. A
function of business travellers booking four or five seats to come home for the
weekend, and then picking the right one when their schedules clarified.
E-Tickets have reduced this sort of behaviour considerably.

However, airlines do overbook,
and it is in the resolution of the problem that we are finding ourselves today.
United appeared to try a little bit, and then quickly resorted to the
contemporary tactic of dealing with commercial issues, and brought in the heavies.
This was completely wrong. While the passenger’s blood curdling scream may have
been a touch theatrical, but I have no idea what was going through his mind at
the time, this was not a satisfactory way to resolve what was a simple
commercial issue.

United overbooked simply
to maximise their revenues; fair enough. When presented with an over booking situation,
they should have continued the “bidding” process, offering increasing
inducements to passengers until one or two were persuaded to accept. The story
indicates that they tired of this process at $800 and called “The Boys”, but
has they risen to the heady heights of $1,200 - 1,500 they would have found
somebody willing to change.

It was, after all, their
gamble that failed to pay, and adding a few dollars to encourage a change of
plan would have worked; I have seen this before.

It is the quickness with
which airline employees will hide behind the excuses of “security”, “our terms of
passage” and “operational requirement”. “We have the right to ….”, they intone,
and indeed they do. But having the right to disembark and client and bringing
in a horde of unthinking thugs to haul them off an aircraft are poles apart.

It is also interesting
and no less concerning that Air Canada in the past month have defended
passengers finding themselves on “Stand-by” when a confirmed seat has been
purchased by glibly intoning “a reservation isn’t a guaranteed seat”. Oh no? When
did this change, and how many clients know that buying the most economical confirmed
seat that an airline sells is only a “stand by” seat? Now defending overbooking may be hard yet justifiable, but turning the problem back to the passenger, and indicating that simply because they had paid the lowest fare (a price offered in exchange for a service), they deserved to be bumped is simply outrageous.

And this is worrying.

If
this answer, of robust and haought dismissal of any complaint, becomes acceptable, then logically airlines will and can sell
increasing numbers of seats by simply waving the (massive) rule book at clients
duped into thinking that a cheap seat was a great way to get home and see the
family for a weekend. “Sorry folks, but the regulations allow this, and I have
you rerouted via Plonksville and Tarabang. You will get home in a week.”

This is a serious
matter.

Airlines need to
overbook to protect their margins and maintain profitability in a very
difficult industry. However, when they lose the gamble and are faced with
denying passage to their clients, they should stand up to the plate, pay
whatever it takes and face the consequences of their actions. Resorting to the use
of law enforcement officers to enforce the results of a commercial decision is
a very disturbing pattern, and one that government agencies charged with
protecting the interests of their constituents (and not simply their
financiers) need to address.